Reinhard Clever, Ph.D.

• Home
• Publications
• Presentations
• CV
• Vision

Airport and Station Accessibility as A Determinant of
Mode Choice

Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Civil Engineering, Transportation Engineering, Committee: Mark M. Hansen (chair), Samer Madanat, Paul A. Ruud, Phil Spector, ©2006

• Full Text
• Abstract
• References
• Cited by
• Extras

Abstract

This dissertation examines whether the positive experience with High Speed Rail (HSR) in Europe and Japan is likely to be transferable to North America without significant modifications. It studies how important the access advantage was to the success of the Japanese system.

A utility impact analysis revealed that access and egress related variables account for 26 - 43% of the total absolute utility of typical air and rail travel. Terminal fixed effects were found to be about four times more important for HSR than for air. They capture not only accessibility attributes, but also the attractiveness of the terminal's location. If the utility of HSR travel in the United States would depend on the magnetism of large downtown stations as much as it appears to in Japan, innovative solutions must be found to replicate this effect. Two solutions are outlined in the first and last chapters. They require a paradigm shift to convergence, seeing urban, regional, and high speed ground transportation as one coherent system.

Almost 50 000 air and rail observations of the 1995 Intercity Travel Survey could be used to estimate separate airport pair and HSR station pair choice models. The HSR choice set consisted of 1 260 station pairs and had to be randomized. Weights compensate for heteroskedasticity and extend the sample to a typical Fall day with daily expansion factors.

The small air and large HSR coefficients estimated with nested logit suggested that a new airport would mostly draw passengers away from other airport pairs, while adding HSR stations would have a high impact on other modes.

References

• Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley.
• Agresti, A. (1996). An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley.
• Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1986). Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). London: Collier Macmillan.
• Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2001. (2001). Washington, D.C.: Department of Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration.
• Airport Characteristics Data Bank. (1992). Montréal: International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO).
• Anton, H. (1992). Calculus with Analytic Geometry (4th ed., brief ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Bakker, J. J., Calkin, J., & Sylvester, S. (1988). Multi Centered Time Transfer System for Capital Metro, Austin, Texas. Transportation Research Record, 1202, 22-28.
• Barwise, P., & Meehan, S. (2004). Simply Better. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Beimborn, E. A. (1968). An Examination of the Effects of the Access Portion of a Trip upon an Intercity Mode Choice. Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.
• Beimborn, E. A. (1969). Terminal Access and the Choice of Intercity Modes, Transportation Engineering Journal, Proceedings. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
• Ben-Akiva, M.E., & Swait, J. (1984). The Akaike Likelihood Ratio Index (Working Paper). Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Civil Engineering - Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Ben-Akiva, M. E. (1977). Choice Models with Simple Choice Set Generating Processes (Working Paper). Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Civil Engineering, MIT.
• Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Morikawa, T. (1990a). Estimation of switching models from revealed preferences and stated intentions. Transportation research, 24A (6), 485-495.
• Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Morikawa, T. (1990b). Estimation of Travel Demand Models from Multiple Data Sources. In M. Koshi (Ed.), Transportation and Traffic Theory (461-476). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
• Bernick, M., & Cervero, R. (1997). Transit Villages in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Bhat, C. R. (1995). A Heteroskedastic Extreme Value Model of Intercity Travel Mode Choice. Transportation Research, 29B (6), 471-483.
• Bowman, J. L. (1998). The day activity schedule approach to travel demand analysis. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
• Box, G. E. P., & Cox, D. R. (1964). An Analysis of Transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 26, 211-214.
• Boyce, W. E., & DiPrima, R. C. (1992). Elementary Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Briginshaw, D. (2005). Safety Must Take Priority. International Railway Journal, 25 (6), 1.
• Brög, W. (1982). Application of the Situational Approach to Depict a Model of Personal Long Distance Travel. Transportation Research Record, 890, 24-33.
• Brög, W. (1988). Zukunftsperspektiven des ÖPNV: Szenarien und Handlungsalternativen (Future Perspectives of Public Transit: Alternative Courses of Action - in German). Paper presented at the VÖV-Jahrestagung '88.
• Brown, D. A. (1968). An Intercity Passenger Transportation Demand Model. Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
• von Bülow, A. (2003). Die CIA und der 11. September. München, Zürich: Piper Verlag GmbH.
• California Intercity High Speed Rail Commission, & Charles River Associates. (1996). Independent Ridership and Passenger Revenue Projections for High Speed Rail Alternatives in California: Final Report. Boston, Mass.: Charles River Associates.
• Central Transportation Planning Staff. (1997). Transfer Penalties in Urban Mode Choice Modeling (Report DOT-T-97-18). Washington, D.C.: US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration.
• Cervero, R. (1994). Rail Oriented Office Development in California: How Successful? Transportation Quarterly, 48 (1), 33-44.
• Cervero, R., & Duncan, M. (2002). Transit’s Value-Added: Effects of Light and Commuter Rail Services on Commercial Land Values. Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board 81st Annual Meeting, January 13-17, 2002, Washington, D.C.
• Cervero, R., & Landis, J. (1993). Assessing the Impacts of Urban Rail Transit on Local Real Estate Markets Using Quasi Experimental Comparisons. Transportation Research, 27A (1), 13-27.
• Chiiki Keizai Soran (Comprehensive Databank of Regional Economics - in Japanese). (2000). Tokyo: Toyo Keizai Shinposha.
• Clever, R. (1994). Eine Zukunftvision des InterCity Systems: notwendige Änderungen in der Fahrplan- und Tarifgestaltung. Zeitschrift für Verkehrswissenschaft, 65 (2), 121-147.
• Clever, R. (1996). Schnelligkeit oder Häufigkeit: Überlegungen zur Einführung des Integralen Taktfahrplans im Fernverkehr der Eisenbahn. Zeitschrift für Verkehrswis­senschaft, 67 (2), 138-182.
• Clever, R. (1997). Integrated Timed Transfer: a European Perspective. Transportation Research Record,
  1571, 109-115.
• Clever, R. (2005). Eine Vision für Berlin und den Transrapid. Zeitschrift für Verkehrswissenschaft, 76 (1),
  69-89.
• Cohen, G. S., Erlbaum, N. S., & Hartgen, D. T. (1978). Intercity Rail Travel Models. Transportation Research Record, 673, 21-25.
• DeFao, J. (2000-11-02). `Transit Village' Planned in Oakland Project -  Planned for Mac­Arthur BART Area. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A22.
• Dobson, A. J. (2001). An Introduction to Generalized Linear Models (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
• Domencich, T. A., & McFadden, D. (1975). Urban Travel Demand : a Behavioral Analysis: a Charles River Associates Research Study. Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co.
• Ellis, R. H., Bennett, J. C., & Rassam, P. R. (1974). Approaches for Improving Airport Access. Transportation Engineering Journal, 100 (TE3).
• First N700 Shinkansen Train Starts Testing. (2005). International Railway Journal, 45 (5), 40-41.
• Forinash, C. V. (1992). A Comparison of Model Structures for Intercity Travel Mode Choice. Masters Thesis, Northwestern University.
• Forinash, C. V., & Koppelman, F. S. (1993). Application and Interpretation of Nested Logit Models of Intercity Mode Choice. Transportation Research Record, 1413, 98-106.
• G-7 Countries: Transportation Highlights. (BTS99-01)(1999). U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
• Gaudry, M. J. I. (1991). Three Families of Mode Choice Models Applicable to Intercity Travel Demand with Aggregate Data, Canadian Transport Policy (43-50). King­ston, Ont.: John Deutsch Institute for Economic Policy.
• Gaudry, M. J. I. (1995). Three Families of Mode Choice Models Applicable to Intercity Travel Demand with Aggregate Data. Montréal: Université de Montréal, Centre de recherche sur les transports.
• Gaudry, M. J. I., & Dagenais, M. G. (1979). The DOGIT Model. Transportation Research, 13B, 105-112.
• Gaudry, M. J. I., & Wills, M. J. (1978). Estimating the Functional Form of Travel Demand Models. Transportation Research, 12 (4), 257-289.
• Gemeindeverzeichnis. (2002). Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland.
• Godin, S. (1999). Permission Marketing. New York: Simon & Schuster.
• Goldberger, A. S. (1991). A Course in Econometrics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Gosling, G. D. (1984). An Airport Ground Access Mode Choice Model (Technical Document UCB-ITS-TD-84-6). Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California.
• Goulias, K. G., Brög, W., & Erl, E. (1998). Perceptions in Mode Choice Using the Situ­ational Approach : a Trip by Trip Multivariate Analysis for Public Transportation. Transportation Research Record, 1645, 82-93.
• Grayson, A. (1981). A Disaggregate Model of Mode Choice in Intercity Travel. Transportation Research Record, 835, 36-42.
• Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103-123.
• Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic Econometrics (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Hansen, M. M. (1990). Airline Competition in a Hub Dominated Environment: an Application of Noncooperative Game Theory. Transportation Research, 24B (1), 27-43.
• Hansen, M. M. (1988). A Model of Airline Hub Competition. Dissertation, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif.
• Harvey, G. (1986a). Analyzing Airport Access in a Multiple Airport Region: National Research Council, Transportation Research Board.
• Harvey, G. (1986b). A Study of Airport Access Mode Choice. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 112 (5).
• Harvey, G. (1987). Airport Choice in a Multiple Airport Region. Transportation Research, 21A (6).
• Harvey, G. (1988). ACCESS : Models of Airport Access and Airport Choice for the San Francisco Bay Region (Report). Berkeley, Calif.: Deakin Harvey Skabardonis.
• Hensher, D. A. (1997). A Practical Approach to Identifying the Market Potential for High Speed Rail: a Case Study in the Sydney-Canberra Corridor. Transportation Research, 31A (6), 431-446.
• Hensher, D. A. (1998). Intercity Rail Services: a Nested Logit Stated Choice Analysis of Pricing Options. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 32 (2), 130-151.
• Hensher, D. A., Brotchie, J., & Gunn, H. F. (1989). A Methodology for Investigating the Passenger Demand for High Speed Rail, 14th Australasian Transport Research Forum (Vol. 1, 459-476).
• Hope, R. (2003). Tokaido Upgrade to Beat back Air Competition. Railway Gazette International, 159 (4),
  199-201.
• Horowitz, A. J. (1981). Subjective Value of Time in Bus Transit Travel. Transportation, 10, 149-164.
• Horowitz, A. J. (1983). Statistical Comparison of Non-Nested Probabilistic Choice Models. Transportation Science, 17.
• Hughes, M. (2004). On Track to Hit Market Share Target. Railway Gazette International, 160 (10), 691-694.
• Infratest Sozialforschung. (1992). Umsteigewiderstände als Bestimmungsfaktor der Nachfrage im Schienenpersonenfernverkehr (Transfer Resistance as Decision Variable of Demand in Intercity Rail Transport - in German) (Report). München.
• Investigation Into Japanese Crash Begins. (2005, 2005-04-29). International Railway Journal. Available: http://www.railjournal.com/latenews_archive.html [2005, 2005-05-31].
• Jackson, C. (2004a). Pioneer High Speed Line Is still at The Cutting Edge. Railway Gazette International, 160 (10), 677-680.
• Jackson, C. (2004b). Rival Concepts Advance Train Designs. Railway Gazette International, 160 (10), 682-684.
• Jackson, C. (2004c). Shinkansen Recovery Boosts Growth. Railway Gazette International, 160 (10), 686-688.
• Jackson, C. (2005). Effective & Speedy Wins the Traffic. Railway Gazette International, 161 (5), 221-223.
• Jänsch, E. (1994). Hochgeschwindigkeitsverkehr in Europa Wächst Zügig (High Speed Rail Service Is Growing Fast in Europe - German). Eisenbahntechnische Rund­schau (5).
• Jänsch, E., & Rump, R. (1990). Hochgeschwindigkeitsverkehr international. In P. Münchschwander (Ed.), Schienenschnellverkehr (Vol. 4, 250). Heidelberg: R. v. Decker's Verlag, G. Schenck GmbH.
• Jinbunsha Editorial Staff (Ed.). (2000). Shin Zenkoku Chimei Yomigana Jiiten (A New Dictionary and Pronunciation Guide of Place Names for the Whole Country - in Japanese). Tokyo: Jinbunsha.
• Jomard, J. M. (2000). Eurostar Fête son Cinquième Anniversaire. Revue Générale des Chemins de Fer (4), 45-46.
• Kanafani, A. K., & Youssef, W. (1993). Roles and Market Share: the Interaction between Air and High Speed Rail - Transportation in California: Phase one Final Report. Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California.
• Kasai, Y. (2000). Tokaido Shinkansen Reaches Technical Perfection. International Railway Journal, 40 (1),
  30-33.
• Kennedy, P. (1992). A Guide to Econometrics (3rd ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Knutton, M. (2004). Vertical Integration Proves to Be a Winner. International Railway Journal, 19 (10).
• Koppelman, F. S. (1989). Multidimensional model system for intercity travel choice behavior. Transportation Research Record, 1241, 1-8.
• Koppelman, F. S., & Hirsh, M. (1986). Intercity Passenger Decision Making: Conceptual Structure and Data Implications. Transportation Research Record, 1085, 70-75.
• Koppelman, F. S., Kuah, G. K., & Hirsh, M. (1984). Review of Intercity Passenger Demand Modeling : Mid-60's to the Mid 80's. Evanston, Ill.: The Transportation Center and Department of Civil Engineering, Northwestern University.
• Kraft, J., & Kraft, A. (1976). Mode Choice Characteristics  as Determinants of Interurban Transport Demand. Transportation Research, 10 (1), 31-35.
• Krista, M., & Oltrogge, C. (undated). Linienplanung Fernverkehr DB 2000 Abschluss­bericht.  (Long Distance Route Planning for German Rail in the Year 2000 - Final Report - in German). Braunschweig: Ingenieurgesellschaft für Verkehrsplanung und Verkehrssicherheit.
• Kuhfeld, W. F. (2003). Marketing Research Methods in SAS (SAS 9.1 ed. Vol. TS-689). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
• Leake, G. R., & Underwood, J. R. (1977). An Intercity Terminal Access Modal Choice Model. Transportation Planning and Technology, 4, 11-21.
• Lee, J.-H., & Chang, J. S. (2006). The Impact of High Speed Rail Service on Mode Share of Intercity Passenger Travel in Korea. Paper presented at the 85th Annual Meet­ing of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
• Lunsford, M. E., & Gosling, G. D. (1994). Airport Choice and Ground Access Mode Choice Models: A Review and Analysis of Selected Literature (Working Paper UCB-ITS-WP-94-5). Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of Transportation Studies, Univer­sity of California.
• Lyles, R. W., & Mallick, S. R. (1990). An Intercity Modal Split Considering four Modes. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 24 (3), 191-212.
• Machefert-Tassin, Y. (1999). La ligne nouvelle à Grande Vitesse de l'Eurotunnel à Londres (The new high speed line from the Eurotunnel to London - in French). Revue Générale des Chemins de Fer (3).
• Mandel, B. N., Gaudry, M. J. I., & Rothengatter, W. (1993). A Disaggregate Box-Cox Logit Mode Choice Model of Intercity Passenger Travel in Germany. Montréal: Université de Montréal, Centre de Recherche sur les Transports.
• Maxwell, R. R. (2003). Converting a large region to a multimodal pulsed-hub public transport network. Transportation Research Record, 1835, 128-136.
• Mayrzedt, H. (2001). Japans Autobahnen-Mautstraßen. Internationales Verkehrswesen, 53 (4), 137-141.
• McCarthy, P. S. (1997). The Role of Captivity in Aggregate Share Models of Intercity Passenger Travel. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 31 (3), 293-308.
• McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1998). Generalized Linear Models. Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
• McFadden, D. (1972). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior (Working Paper 199). Berkeley, Calif.: Institute of Urban & Regional Development, University of California.
• McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics (105-142). New York: Academic Press.
• McFadden, D. (1978a). Modelling the Choice of Residential Location. Transportation Research Record, 673, 72-78.
• McFadden, D. (1978b). Modelling the Choice of Residential Location. In A. Karlquist (Ed.), Spatial Interaction Theory and Residential Location (75-96). Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co.
• Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th Edition. (1993). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
• Mohammadian, A., & Miller, E. J. (2002). A Comparison of the Performance of Nested Logit Models and Artificial Neural Networks for Predicting Household Automo­bile Choices. Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board 81st Annual Meeting, January 13-17, 2002, Washington, D.C.
• Morikawa, T. (1989). Incorporating Stated Preference Data in Travel Demand Analysis. Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
• Morikawa, T., Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Yamada, K. (1991). Forecasting Intercity Rail Rider­ship Using Revealed Preference and Stated Preference Data. Transportation Research Record, 1328, 30-35.
• Morrison, S. A., & Winston, C. (1985). An Econometric Analysis of the Demand for Intercity Passenger Transportation. Research in Transportation Economics, 2, 213-237.
• Munizaga, M. A., Heydecker, B. G., & Ortúzar S., J. d. D. (2000). Representation of Heteroskedasticity in Discrete Choice Models. Transportation Research, 34B (3), 219-240.
• Nelder, J. A., & Wedderburn, R. W. M. (1972). Generalised Linear Models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 135, 370-384.
• Nicholson, W. (1992). Microeconomic Theory: Basic Principles and Extensions (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press.
• OAG Desktop Flight Guide - Worldwide Edition. (Vol. 19 No. 3)(1994). Oak Brook, IL: Official Airline Guides, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.
• Oetting, A. (1995). Verkehrsverlagerung und Induktion im Personenfernverkehr (Diplomarbeit). Aachen: Technical University of Aachen, Institute of Transportation Studies.
• Overseas Timetable. (2000). Peterborough, UK: Thomas Cook Publishing.
• Peers, J. B., & Bevilacqua, M. (1976). Structural Travel Demand Models: An Intercity Application. Transportation Research Record, 569, 124-135.
• Pels, E., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (2003). Access to and competition between airports: a case study for the San Francisco Bay area. Transportation Research, 37A (1), 71-83.
• Quandt, R. E., & Baumol, W. J. (1966). The Demand for Abstract Transport Modes: Theory and Measurement. Journal of Regional Science, 6 (2), 13-26.
• Rassam, P. R., Ellis, R. H., & Bennett, J. C. (1970). The N-dimensional Logit Model: Development and
  Application: Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
• Rassam, P. R., Ellis, R. H., & Bennett, J. C. (1971). The N-dimensional Logit Model : Development and Application. Highway Research Record, 369, 135-147.
• Recker, W. W. (2001). A bridge between travel demand modeling and activity-based travel analysis. Transportation research, 35B (5), 481-506.
• Ruud, P. A. (2000). An Introduction to Classical Econometric Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Schafer, A. (2000). Regularities in Travel Demand: An International Perspective. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 3 (3), 1-31.
• Schneider, J. B. (1993). Selecting and Evaluating Intermodal Stations for Intercity High Speed Ground Transportation. Transportation Quarterly, 47 (2), 221-245.
• Sharp, A. (2005). Which Way to the Airport? Railway Gazette International, 161 (4), 217-219.
• Sobieniak, N. D., Westin, R. B., Rosapep, T., & Shin, T. (1979). Choice of Access Mode to Intercity Terminal. Transportation Research Record, 728, 47-53.
• Spear, B. D. (1984). An Analysis of the Demand for Airport Bus Services at Washington National and Dulles International Airports (Report DOT-TSC-FAA-84-2). Cambridge, Mass.: US Department of Transportation, Transportation Systems Center.
• Spector, P. (2002). Course Notes for S100. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California.
• Stephanedes, Y. J., & Kumar, V. (1984). Comparative Evaluation of Intercity Demand Models, Discrete Choice Models in Regional Science (114-121). London: Pion, Ltd.
• Stephanedes, Y. J., Kumar, V., & Padmanabhan, B. (1984). A Fully Disaggregate Mode Choice Model for Business Intercity Travel. Transportation Planning and Technology, 9 (1), 13-23.
• Stopher, P. R., Metcalf, H. M. A., Wilmot, C. G., Catalina, A. J., & Schimpeler, C. C. (1999). Estimating Patronage for a Feasibility Study of High Speed Rail in Thailand. Transportation Research Record, 1691,
  12-18.
• Stopher, P. R., & Prashker, J. N. (1976). Intercity Passenger Forecasting: The Use of Current Travel Forecasting Procedures. Transportation Research Forum, XVII (1), 66-75.
• Tokaido Line to be Improved. (2003). International Railway Journal, 18 (5), 2.
• Train, K. (1986). Qualitative Choice Analysis: Theory, Econometrics, and an Application to Automobile Demand. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Transit Fact Book. (1996). American Public Transit Association (APTA).
• Vilmart, C., & Paix, J.-F. (1994). Les Effets des Ruptures de Charge sur la Concurrence entre l'Avion et le Train. Revue Générale des Chemins de Fer (10), 17-21.
• Vranich, J. (1997). Derailed : What Went Wrong and what to Do about America's Passenger Trains (1st ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press.
• Vrtic, M., & Axhausen, K. W. (2003). The impact of tilting trains in Switzerland: A route choice model of regional and long distance public transport trips. Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board 82nd Annual Meeting, January 12-16, 2003, Washington, D.C.
• Walker, J. L. (2001). Extended Discrete Choice Models: Integrated Framework, Flexible Error Structures, and Latent Variables. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
• Walker, J. L. (2002). The Logit Kernel (or Continuous Mixed Logit) Model: Dispelling Misconceptions of Identification. Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board 81st Annual Meeting, January 13-17, 2002, Washington, D.C.
• Walther, K. (1991). Maßnahmenreagibler Modal-Split für den städtischen Personenverkehr (Heft 45). Aachen: Technical University of Aachen, Institute of Transportation Studies.
• Wardman, M., Whelan, G. A., & Toner, J. P. (1994). Diverting Interurban Car Users to Rail : Results from a Revealed Preference Mode Choice Model (Working Paper 423). Leeds, England: University of Leeds, Institute for Transport Studies.
• Washington, S. P., Karlaftis, M. G., & Mannering, F. L. (2003). Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis. Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
• Watson, P. L. (1974). Comparison of the Model Structure and Predictive Power of Aggregate and Disaggregate Models of Intercity Mode Choice. Transportation Research Record, 527, 59-65.
• Wen, C.-H., & Koppelman, F. S. (2001). The Generalized Nested Logit Model. Transportation Research, 35B (7), 627-641.
• Westin, R. B., & Manski, C. F. (1979). Theoretical and Conceptual Developments in Demand Modeling. In D. A. Hensher & P. R. Stopher (Eds.), Behavioural Travel Modeling. London: Croom Helm.
• Widlert, S. (1994). Stated Preference Studies: the Design Affects the Results. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Travel Behaviour, Valle Nevado, Santiago, Chile.
• Widlert, S. (1998). Stated Preference Studies: the Design Affects the Results. In J. d. D. Ortúzar & D. A. Hensher & S. Jara-Díaz (Eds.), Travel Behaviour Research : Updating the State of Play (105-121). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
• Wolinsky, J. (2000). California's Passenger Rail Success Story. Railway Age, 201 (9), 95-101.
• Wonnacott, R. J., & Wonnacott, T. H. (1979). Econometrics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Xie, J.-R. (2000). A neural network approach to modeling and predicting intercity passenger flows. Dissertation, Indiana University.

Extras

This dissertation has been published as a book, available on amazon.com.

• To make it easier for the researcher to create an utility impact analysis on their own, the original Excel spreadsheet underlying the graphics on pages 228-229 is made available here:
  • UtilityImpactAnalysis.xls